The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its order on Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea challenging the downgrade of his security cover from Z+ to X category, while making clear that remarks allegedly casting aspersions on the judiciary would not influence its decision on the security dispute.
Justice Krishna Rao questioned Banerjee’s comments during the hearing after the West Bengal government alleged that remarks made in a televised interview amounted to criminal contempt of court. The state urged the court to initiate suo motu proceedings and submitted a transcript of the interview along with a pen drive containing its video recording.
Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, appearing for the state, alleged that Banerjee had cast aspersions on the judiciary by naming a judge. “This case is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act. This cannot be allowed to continue,” he submitted, according to the report.
Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, opposed the state’s contention. He argued that the remarks had no bearing on the relief sought in the writ petition and were made in the context of alleged attacks on Banerjee’s residence when his wife and children were present, as well as repeated attempts to obtain protection from the authorities.
Alam described the comments as an “expression of exasperation” and said Banerjee was seeking protection of his fundamental right to life under Article 21. He also submitted that Banerjee had faced six attacks and that the state’s failure to provide adequate security reflected a breakdown of law and order.
Justice Rao questioned Banerjee’s remarks about alleged political affiliations within the judiciary. “You ask your client, who are the judges with the BJP and who aren’t… since he is so intelligent, let him give a list. I will see,” the judge told the lawyer. The bench also observed that Banerjee, as an educated person and sitting MP, could not be treated as an ordinary layperson.
“Your client is writing the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of the judges,” Justice Rao said, according to the report. The court further observed that if Banerjee was aggrieved by an earlier order, he could have approached another bench, noting that vacation benches were available to hear such grievances.
At the same time, the bench said the controversy surrounding the remarks would not derail the security-related plea. “Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into account everything and pass orders,” Justice Rao observed.
Banerjee’s counsel said the threat perception assessed by the state government did not reflect the situation on the ground. He sought an emergency review of the MP’s security and an increase in his security cover in the interim, while maintaining that there was no denial that Banerjee faced a threat.
The hearing followed Banerjee’s allegation that his residence in Kalighat, south Kolkata, had been attacked on November 7. He had also alleged earlier attacks, including an incident involving a man he claimed was visible in photographs with BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari. These allegations were presented as part of his argument that authorities had failed to provide adequate protection; the report does not record a final finding on them.
The court’s order on Banerjee’s plea is awaited. The contempt-related allegations and the security challenge remained separate issues during the hearing, with the bench indicating that it would consider the full record before passing orders.
